Enforcement Of An Undertaking Given By Litigant Continues Notwithstanding Disposal Of Matter Till It Is Discharged: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has observed that enforcement of an undertaking given by a litigant would continue notwithstanding disposal of a matter till the undertaking is discharged.

The Court was considering an appeal against an order whereby the  contemnor and another were produced under arrest and they were given liberty to take necessary instructions with regard to the alleged dues payable by them.

The division-bench of Justice Joymalya Baghchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth observed, "Enforcement of an undertaking given by a litigant would continue notwithstanding disposal of a matter till the undertaking is discharged."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Arindam Chattopadhyay while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Urmila Chakraborty.

The thrust of the challenge to the order was that the suit for eviction and mesne profits has since been decreed and an appeal was pending. It was contended that once the decree has been passed, the interim order whose alleged violation had given rise to the contempt proceeding, no longer survives and therefore the contempt proceeding was wholly without jurisdiction and the direction to take instructions for payment of the alleged dues was illegal.

The contemnors did not make payment in terms of the undertaking. On the contrary, they took out an application for modification of the aforesaid order on the ground of financial crisis. The application was dismissed and thereafter the contemnors partly complied with the undertaking and made some payments. As the entire dues had not been paid as per the undertaking, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the contempt proceeding. 

Inspite of service upon the contemnors, they did not enter appearance in the contempt proceeding and warrant of arrest was issued. One of the contemnors was produced under arrest and the appellant appeared before the Court. They gave a further undertaking and again adopted evasive and dilatory tactics to delay the matter and thus again warrants of arrest were issued. Pursuant to this order, both the contemnors were arrested and produced before the Judge and by the impugned order, they were directed to take instructions to pay the dues.

During the pendency of the contempt proceeding, eviction decree came to be passed which has been challenged in appeal.

The Court refused to accept the proposition of the Appellant that the direction for payment of alleged dues was illegal as the interim order were merged with the final decree.

"We are unable to accept this proposition. The suit had been filed for eviction and mesne profits. It had been partly decreed. Though eviction decree was passed, the suit is pending with regard to mesne profits. The interim order passed in GA/2/2022, therefore, survives," the Court observed.

The Court stated that enforcement of an undertaking given by a litigant would continue notwithstanding disposal of a matter till the undertaking is discharged and was thus of the view there was no jurisdictional error.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title:

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Arindam Chattopadhyay, Advocate Soumya Ray, Advocate Soumik Dey, Advocate Anwesha Saha, Advocate Pramit Panda, Advocate  

Respondent- Advocate Urmila Chakraborty, Advocate Paramita Banerjee, Advocate S.Paul, Advocate Tamogna Chattopadhyay  

Click here to read/ download Order: